I get together with friends once or twice a week and we have been frequenting this food cart pod to grab takeout for months now. It’s really the best pod in town. We are so bummed that it’s leaving us so soon. I hope Garden Monster and the Tandoor will pop up again somewhere nearby.

This is the best, most comfortable community eating space in Portland. My second fave, 43rd and Belmont also redeveloped. Both within walking and biking distance for me. More of Portland’s essential character out to make room for high-priced apartments.

So, what was there prior to 2014? My guess is that during the recession there were residents who hated the blighted vacant lot and hoped and prayed for SOME kind of development. Now, just THREE YEARS later were acting like it’s an historic building. Do you not realize that the food cart pod model, if succesful, LITERALLY drives itself out of business by helping RAISE property values in the area? That’s how silly ole’ capitalism works. By creating a cool and fun place that people want to live near they help to drive up the value of real estate and thus make it unaffordable for this type of business model. I love that food cart pod. Smakken, Garden Monster, etc…However, by patronizing it and making it successful we all played our part in it’s demise. Weird, right? 🙂

Exactly Rosa. That’s the irony. You (our) support is why it’s been sold and now will bring in 120 new humans to the cool, hip, convenient neighborhood with wonderful schools, and awesome restaurants. Weird.

This thread makes me giggle. Move to Portland because it’s hip and cool. Yet the influx of people is what causes the hip and cool stuff to go away. “Dammit, I want it to stay just like it was when I moved here!” Lol

I’ve lived here for almost 40 years, so I get to have a bit of sadness for something I’ve loved that was well-run and created community. One can accept change AND mourn for the good things that are gone. I hope it can be recreated in another lot and last another 3 years before it has to move on. I kind of like the idea of other neighborhoods getting to enjoy it on a rotating basis.

It looks like Tidbit has been in existence since Oct. 2014. So, 3 years, and they have built up quite a following in that short time. Nice to see that Scout Brewery is helping to create a new cart pod at 50th.

Garden Monsters is great. You get a huge bowl of salad with your choice of protein for $10. Very filling. I recommend the king of clubs salad with chicken, and the avocado dressing. Tandoor is an Indian cart that’s got the best deal. 2 entrees with rice and naan for $7. You can get extra naan for $0.50 and you get 2 more naans, which ends up being too much for me so I always have leftover for lunch the next day. I haven’t tried the ramen at Hapa Ramen, but 2 of my friends have and they swear by it. If you want to read about all the carts there, check this article out at FoodCartsPortland.com. http://www.foodcartsportland.com/category/location/southeast-portland-location/se-28th-and-division-tidbit/ Most of the carts also have their own website where you can check out their menu.

I would prefer to have mechanisms in place to slow the pace of change. I lived in Munich, DE for a couple years. Though the economy was robust there, I appreciated the hurdles placed in the way of developers and speculators. I also participated in an extensive neighborhood planning process in Seattle in the late 90s. Each neighborhood had multiple meetings to discuss and plan out the future. Not every plan is being implemented – but it was pretty amazing to see people coming together to have discussions about our infrastructure and how it could be improved. Portland could experience something like that process – the development of the comp plan had some similarity but was not nearly as involving of the citizenry. I wonder what the value of the current food cart pod is vs. what a developer will make on the property. 20 small businesses; thousands of happy eaters; a community space vs. homes/rent/sales of condos. I don’t know the values on either end of the equation, but I feel the current value to our community of this food pod is not even able to be taken into consideration. There is a really neat group in Seattle called Forterra. http://forterra.org/ I went to an event of theirs that they hold annually – Ampersand. Ever since then I’ve been receiving their newsletter and I keep feeling pulled to a) go see more of what they’re up to and b) get something like this organization going in Portland. I have a feeling if we had a group like this here, we might have a chance at a different outcome in this situation. Losing great community gathering spaces is beyond sad to me. It’s some sort of wrong choice. Thanks for listening 🙂 Albert

Thank you for the thoughtful essay, Albert. It is worth thinking about the pace of change, and what city government can do to affect that. Yes, the city can, by changing or not changing zoning rules, have some affect on whether things get built or demolished. But that is not the sole driver of the pace of change. A major reason Portland is changing quickly is that people all over the state, and the country, have decided that Portland is a place they’d like to live. And they are moving here at the rate of 111 people a day. This creates a demand for housing that means that if there is not enough new housing to accommodate them, the existing housing will be bid up in price. Even, the small, older, “affordable” houses will cease to be affordable. There is a debate over what can be done, but many people believe that allowing more housing to be built, especially in the neighborhoods where people want to live, is one part of the answer. These places also happen to be places on transit corridors and close to downtown where there is a higher likelihood that the residents will commute by means other than driving, lowering their carbon emissions. While increased supply will eventually slow price increases, new buildings over 19 units will also include some affordable units by law. Neither is the perfect answer. But what about the gathering places, the food cart pods? Besides moving from one vacant lot to another, we are starting to see multi-story buildings accommodate numerous small food purveyors on the ground floor, with common eating areas. The Pine Street Market and the Portland Food Hall downtown and the Zipper on NE Sandy are three examples. The D Street Village building, is a similar concept, with multiple small spaces and small common eating areas inside and out (although it has offices above, not residential) Such shared-use buildings seem one way that both food carts and housing could be accommodated on the same site. The 65 apartments that will go in on the site will allow 70-90 people to live on Division Street, and on one of the city’s busiest bus lines, where they arguably will have less environmental impact than if they were in houses instead, or were further out from downtown. I believe there will be at least one retail space, as well as some parking. I hope that some developers soon will see the opportunity to develop the “food hall” model somewhere in SE, and create a prototype for sustainable living and sustainable small restaurant business developments on the same site.

I too am sad about this and have been visiting the carts quite often lately. I have been very grateful to experience so many wonderful spots in walking distance. I am struggling to find appreciation and value in more living spaces and the lack of zoning in our city.

Mostly agree and appreciate your tone and understanding, thank you. This, though: “While increased supply will eventually slow price increases” – I doubt is true. We grow by 111 people a day, but the world grows by 75 million people a year 🙂 So… I don’t see a day when price increases will slow, here. That’s why one of my biggest foci is population growth. http://vhemt.org is one resource I often point people towards. It’s all such an interesting balancing act. I still would like to see the pace slowed and I think there are ways to do that – I also think our involvement, as a society, in what’s happening around us could be turned up a notch 🙂

Someone asked what was there previously. It was an auto repair place, mostly abandoned-type cars. Then unoccupied. So the food pod was a vast improvement. I live just around the corner, love the food carts, but try not to go too often! I don’t be-grudge the previous property owner getting a good buy-out for the property (I don’t remember his name, Asian man who lived around the corner, lived there for years). I don’t even mind apartments going in. But I do mind (mostly) successful businesses and local meet-up spots being driven out. I wish they could find somewhere nearby to go – Shangai Company is for rent…

Just for fun – I agree with Albert that there should be a slowing of development because the current pace is entirely fueled by speculators, without thought for the design of neighborhoods or the city as a whole. Planners have made little colored maps but that’s it. This is what government is for – to look out for the longer term interests of a city/state/country, beyond short-term profit. If the people who are deciding to move here in droves all at once need to wait a bit, it’s not the end of the world. Slower development is always better development. And I disagree with Doug that it’s so great to have a ton of low-level, mostly tiny apartments fill every available property in town all at the same time. Sure, there’s a bit of mandated affordable units but it’s symbolic at best. A few food court buildings like the Zipper don’t account for the natural variety of uses and spaces that occur within a slower-changing environment. Besides, for most developers, projects like the Zipper aren’t profitable enough. Unfortunately, TVA is often the architect of choice for Vic Remmers, known better as Everett “Custom” Homes. Hoping it’s a better developer. That said, the previous owner of that lot (Kim’s Auto Body was the renter) with whom I had many encounters (I lived for 10 years on that street) was a truly horrible steward of the property. I had to badger the City to get him to keep it to a minimal level of safety (along with the abandoned house he owned adjacent to it). I suppose even more tiny glass apartments are better, but not by much.

John: Just to advance the discussion, how do we deal with the increase in land values, house prices, and rental rates in inner neighborhoods? The higher income people moving here will pay more to live here, and outbid the existing residents. The desirability of the inner neighborhoods, coupled with people who can pay more, has led to higher prices in inner neighborhoods, especially as demand outstrips supply. Maybe the bubble will burst tomorrow, but for now, prices seem destined to continue rising. Any ideas on that?

The person at the Portland Design Commission responsible for speaking for the “Public at Large”, Samuel Rodriguez, is a developer! How’s that for a massive conflict of interest? Show up at City Hall and Design Commission meetings. They intentionally schedule mid day, to keep the working class from attending, but we’ve got to make time as concerned citizens. https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bds/article/168799

Hi Doug – of course there’s no silver bullet. But to start with, the question should be asked and considered, in light of what Portland should look like in 10-25-50 years. This is basic urban design. There isn’t any of that at the moment – Portland is proceeding at breakneck speed just based on the simple economics of a grocery store – everyone wants apples now, so let’s just pile on the apples. The much vaunted infill project ignored neighborhood character and difference except at the most minimal level – it was about shoveling more units in regardless of the tremendous difference in character throughout the city. Folks in power need to thoughtfully ask the question with “design” in mind, not just let’s run with the money. The answers will be mixed, but I guarantee they won’t just be about letting a particular kind of gentrification take place as fast as is humanly possible. Sure it’s Utopian but other countries do it (think Scandinanvian) – we choose short-term profit over long-term goals.

This is what I’m talking about when I say that Portland’s spirit & flavor are being chipped away with every demolition of our places & replacing them with cheaply constructed boxy, ugly buildings. They all facade & no quality & will be falling apart in 20 yrs. The majority of these developers & homeowners who are rebuilding are not from Portland, not from Oregon. They have no feel for what we’re about nor sense of what makes this city a gem.

John: I’m sure you were not aware of the planning process recently that in fact looked at what Portland would be like in 20 years, and used the best growth projections available, and neighborhood land inventories, and job projections, and tried to satisfy goals such as equity, reducing carbon emissions, and quality of life. The chosen urban design puts the highest density downtown and on or near corridors to satisfy those goals. The plan is detailed down to building heights in various zones: higher on corridors, lower away from corridors, e.g.. It does get somewhat into design. In “d” overlay areas, there will be more detailed requirements. I can understand that you disagree with some of the choices made in that process, but there was a process. I still wonder, though, if you have any suggestions on how to alleviate the increasing housing prices that are driving all but the rich further away from the center.

I have a series of solutions, and noone’s going to be happy with them. Human population growth drives most of the problems we face as a society. Until we get real and start talking about that we’re going to lose the things we love and things are going to continue to get crowded everywhere. 75 million extra people each year on the planet = x, y and z problems (pollution, species loss, crowding, traffic congestion, loss of food carts and other neighborhood gathering places). We can’t build our way out of this – we have to face that elephant in the room.

The problems will solve themselves. Portland is no longer the dream place to come–because of the trash, the scary homeless people/ addicts, the costs. We are getting very bad publicity. I predict that we will be overbuilt, that small rental landlords will be left with vacancies and that many of the larger buildings will have to decrease rent significantly to fill their buildings. If we follow the patterns of other cities that overbuilt, there will be bankruptcies, condos that can’t pay for their upkeep, I am already hearing from property managers who can not meet their quotas. Doug if this happens I hope you will remember that you were a part of making it happen. And if I am wrong, I hope I will be living elsewhere, and can send you a mental apology.

Ruth: Yes, if the building goes on beyond the demand for the units, the prices will come down, one way or another. Then you will see affordable rentals, and housing prices will come down as well. Perhaps we are near that point. Those who are investing their money in new buildings, I would think, would be aware of these trends. Although, because it may take 3 years from permitting to opening of a building, there will be some lag in the response to the market. I don’t think your scenario is all a bad thing. It will result in lower housing costs. Some investors will suffer, but the buildings will still be useful for many years.

Albert: I’m on your side on this, but a lot of the population growth here in Portland is people moving from other places. With the increasing severity of weather in the Southwest, e.g., I expect we will see folks moving here for relatively cooler weather. I think there’s a name for that phenomenon.

Sort of off topic on the Division building, but the other item that’s based on extremely short-term thinking is the very high proportion of small studio and one-bedroom units with no storage and no outdoor space. So when all the twenty-somethings happy in their little units with easy access to latte’s, whiskey bars and bacon ice cream cones have kids – where are they going to go? These questions could and should be considered in Portland’s planning. They’re not because it’s just real estate speculation. Hooray for capitalism and all that, but without some thoughtful and wise oversight, “market forces” isn’t the best way to make a wonderful city.

John: The general thinking is that when children are involved, at least in inner neighborhoods, the family often moves to a house, whether it be detached or attached. Some developers say they don’t build 3-bed apartments close in because it’s cheaper for the tenants to rent a house. I.e., the 3 bed apt. would have to rent for more than nearby houses. That said, there are a lot of families living in apartments in East Portland, and there are larger apartments there. I don’t know what the ratio in new buildings there is, though. The city’s estimate is that less than a third of Portland households have kids. 1/3 of households are a single person, 1/3 are two people. So, the smaller apartments being built closer in, could accommodate 2/3 of Portland’s households, unless they want more room. And, storage unit construction is booming!

Those little cracker box palaces are generally short term I’d guess. The kids moving in will find a partner, get married maybe, need more space for their accumulated stuff, and kids eventually. They are going to want to continue to live in close in many cases and home values in neighborhoods like ours will continue to rise due to competition for an ever dwindling number.

So Doug….the default setting in your scenario is – in the close-in neighborhoods, it’s all single relatively wealthy young people (I doubt the accuracy of the city’s 1/3 analysis BTW but….) with no outdoor space, no storage (if you think big blank storage buildings are a good urban design concept, I’m going to have to disagree) or any other normal living amenities for living. Then, after a couple has kids they have 2 choices – if they happen to have an income for $850K or so for their starter home, they can move into a house close-in (the affordable ones in your default setting have all been torn down for more profitable bigger homes). If they’re not wealthy, then they move pretty far out from town. Not my idea of a good plan for a lot of fairly obvious reasons. Actually, it’s no plan at all. Just “market forces” determining how a city evolves, which as a designer, I find to be irresponsible. Not to mention that those unique physical characteristics of the city that have slowly evolved over time, disappear completely, being replaced by cookie-cutter apartments, making Portland look pretty much like just another American city anywhere. I doubt there’s anything much that will change this – too much money at stake – but I can still say it’s producing a poor environment and speak up when I have the chance.

Tom: Unfortunately, you’ll have to contend with “market forces”. The single 50 x 100′ lot across the street at 2919 SE Division for instance, sold 9 months ago for $700,000, and the new owner tore down the house, and paid for plans and got them through permitting. The new owner paid $1.07 million in July for the lot and the plans. Perhaps the owners of the LB Market would be interested in selling or leasing that rear parking lot at Caruthers and 37th, that the Division Flats building is now renting from them. Of course that’s also a trade-off, in food carts for parking, as far as neighborhood benefit. Better yet, although on a busy street, the north parking lot for Rite Aid on Chavez, which is rarely used. Could that be a cart pod? Although getting a corporate headquarters back east to approve such an ‘unusual’ use might be difficult, as would buying the lot from them. I’m sure corporate standards dictate how many parking spaces they must have, regardless of location.

If you can only blame landlords then you do not understand the role that land speculators play in this game. Many landlords who purchase rental property at market prices must raise rents in order to cover the new, higher mortgages exacted on those properties. We are seeing on the west coast that the Seattle solution is working. Build, build, build. Flood the market with new housing and it will put downward pressure on rents. We need to put our energy into removing the barriers for developing new housing, of which land owners who are underutilizing their properties for speculation are a major barrier. We cannot stop people moving to Portland. If we don’t build to meet the demand then market pressure will forever push rents upward and squeeze out the residents who cannot or choose not to compete with higher rents.

City growth and property values are quite cyclical. I bought in Ladd’s Addition when people thought it was a dump. Prices will likely not go down in value but may plateau then rise again as they always do near the city center.

Doug – I’m very much aware of the new Planning document – it’s not “design”, it’s “planning”. They are very very different. Of course I can’t control prices, but if I were in a position to make and suggest policy, I would at least put forth some ideas and not let developers permanently take the upper hand. Name just one provision in the planning doc that isn’t supported by speculative development. I understand this is how the system works. But it doesn’t mean it’s good, it doesn’t mean it’s thoughtful, and it doesn’t mean we can’t point out alternatives.

John: I guess the terms are being used loosely. I was referring to the “Urban Design Framework” in the Comprehensive Plan, the oft-repeated map of the city, with orange circles and lines designating the different Centers, and Corridors. And there is a Chapter 3 labeled “Urban Form”, which lays out a series of Goals and Policies. And, no, it doesn’t get into the sort of detail that, for instance “Urban Design – Street and Square” by Cliff Moughtin, does, where the shape of the public space, and the shape of each building and how they relate to each other, is discussed. While perhaps BPS can tackle a small area at a time, I don’t think they have the capacity to do this for the whole city. Even the small initiatives that BPS does have a hard time passing Council. We’ll see that dynamic play out next week when the Central City 2035 Plan is before Council.

For better or worse, real estate is primarily about money – everything is for sale. You’d have to raise the money to buy it off whoever the developer is. North of 7 figures, perhaps. Though it had/has DEQ issues from the body shop, so that may have lowered the price some. Still……sadly the food cart phenomenon was only a temporary one, while landowners sat on property for awhile. It’s the kind of non-financially motivated character that planners are unable to cope with. Designers can do it, with neighborhood input, but as long as money is king in real estate, and developers and planners draw the maps, we’ll get the same old apartments/condo’s with boutiques and $5 croissants on the ground floor. At least for now.

Albert: PortlandMaps lists Young Min Kim, who lives in Gresham, as the owner, although there’s a least a one-month lag on that site for ownership updates. However, the owners (or the buyers?) submitted their application for a building permit back in January, and have been going through the process of getting plans approved since then, so they’ll have perhaps the purchase price, plus the design costs and 7 month’s time invested already. It does seem like a long shot.

I’ve been thinking about a neighborhood wish list thread/page – this could be top of the list 🙂 And, I’ll bet there are a few other things that people might appreciate – a crosswalk here, an urban orchard, there. One main thing is to fight for things that we hold dear. I can’t think of anything more dear to that area of Division than that food cart pod. There’s really no way to put a price on how important a cool gathering space like that is. I bet we could keep the current use if we put our minds/efforts towards this idea. If you are hearing that call – I hereby deputize you to take a few minutes and learn what you can about the property – who’s in charge – $’s involved and contact info. PM me if you wish.

Albert: I believe Assessments are lower than Real Market Value because of Measure 5, and Measure 50 in 1996. Measure 50 capped assessments at the 1997 level, plus a rise of no more than 3% per year. So, the “assessed value” in some cases is much lower than the market value. This is true of properties in areas like Richmond, where property values have risen at a higher rate than 3% for decades. In East Portland, the disparity is not so high. (Someone correct me if I got some of these details wrong) And, unlike in California, the assessment is not recalculated when the property is sold!

Kim is the original property owner – a terrible neighbor for me for about 10 years. Adjacent house to auto shop was abandoned for years & home to every urban creature out there. Doubt he’s the developer. And yes, there’s serious money to be made on these deals – that’s the main reason they’re happening.

Doug – we’ll just have to agree to disagree. Yes, I’ve seen that document – that’s Urban Planning. Maps with little circles and orange lines and blue lines and lots of generic planner-speak. It only marginally addresses specific characteristics – which is what it’s all about. And what people are upset about (part of it anyway). And there’s no reason a big over-arching document like that should. Design is specific. Planning is general. We need design at neighborhood local levels that derives from the specific character of that place, which is not like some other place. Not some giant tome from on-high that tells everyone what is good. But the big document with circles and arrows is easier and makes planners feel good. Meanwhile, what’s happening on the ground is what we see now as the current type of development which is repetitive and virtually without character (character costs money). They’re mostly cheap and they make money. Same stuff everywhere. Not a complaint really, just a fact.

I have read through most of the design plans and they are really generic. You could have bought them on line for a lot less than we probably paid to create them, such a sham. There is no recognition of the culture or the communities that make Portland special. Why for example, if food cart pods are a valued part of our culture, is there no provision made to encouage their future. Divisions future looks more like a college dorm or soviet bock housing, than a vibrant community. This is what happens when greed overtakes over both vision and plain old common sense and when our city government works FOR developers get rich and leave scemes instead of for the citizens. Here are my thoughts: -We need to maintain strong, diverse, walkable neighborhoods with absolute requirements for every building to be mixed use. The 20 minute rule must be seen as a factor in all design decisions. No exceptions. -We need to ensure every neighborhood has green space at its heart -We need to foster innovation and entrepreneurship in our food industry by setting aside land in each neighborhood for food carts. This industry is what has fueled Portlands strong tourist industry and must be maintained. Its an incubator not just for creativity but for jobs. Heck, i will pay a $25 a year “Pod” tax to buy land for this critical part of our city. I would pay this tax over the arts tax any day. – we need our city officials to be creative and lean into the culture and community instead of leaning towards developers. – Developers need to hold their own community accountable for shoddy design and poor quality construction. Does a any member of that community have any integrity at all? Please send me a name cause I have not met a single one yet and would honestly like to have a open discussion. These people are becoming the enemy, largely because no a single one will stand up will stand for Portland over profit. – Yes we get that the city needs to increase density to grow, but its how we do it that counts. Right now we are building the ghost town of the future not a vibrant city of the future.

Btw- many of my preferences for design are found in the Portland Design Commission 2017 State of the City Design Report (minus the protections for food cart pods). But lack of true detail, and generic statements about how to accomplish the goals leaves openings for far too many exceptions which are being granted far too often to the detriment of the community. IMHO

Recent Posts

What my clients say…

Top qualities: Great Results, Expert, High Integrity
If you're looking for one to setup and manage your Constant Contact account, Albert's the guy. He's enthusiastic, creative, and plugged in. He works well with clients, listening to what they want and incorporating his expertise to get them what … [Read More ...]